The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

Nothing is perfect, although given the likely scrutiny "secure drop" sites such as this are like to attract from the three and four-letter agencies determined to know all about everyone and everything (whether legal or not to do so being immaterial), it would be nice if perfection was achieved from the start.

One of the most important outcomes of "secure drop" sites like this would be if an open-source site was created that would highlight and memorialize best practices and "after-action" reports of implementing and administering "secure drop" sites.

Heck, it would be nice if at one of these "white-hat" or "black-hat" conferences a contest or contests could be held to attempt to break into these "secure drop" systems.

The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

It is a classic battle. The brave will win in the long run. Always.

Yes sir. Nothing like hanging yourself and hiding in Russia to show courage.

Courage would be to face the law, regardless of how unjust. See Martin Luther King, for example.

Not trying to be a troll, but lets be honest here, neither Snowden nor Swartz were courageous. Swartz broke the law and broke under the pressure of a plea deal. Snowden actively planned to act in a treasonous manner against the injustice of America, then fled to Russia.

Reading this article, I now wonder if his suicide was a suicide, and if his prosecution for his JSTOR activities was more about his other activities than the JSTOR incident.

Damn you, NSA. This shit used to be firmly in the tinfoil universe.

That still seems like tin-foil domain to me. The NSA may be ignoring privacy rights, but they're probably not not murdering citizens just for writing anonymous leak helper applications.

Yes, and where I once would have said "never", that now moves into "probably."

I'll say it: never.

Swartz's depression was well-known, commented on extensively by himself, and used as a heralding cry for protestations of over-zealous prosecution. I thought we were all agreed that it was clear that he killed himself. The evidence of that doesn't change now, no matter how many times people look under their beds for the NSA.

The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

It is a classic battle. The brave will win in the long run. Always.

Yes sir. Nothing like hanging yourself and hiding in Russia to show courage.

Courage would be to face the law, regardless of how unjust. See Martin Luther King, for example.

Not trying to be a troll, but lets be honest here, neither Snowden nor Swartz were courageous. Swartz broke the law and broke under the pressure of a plea deal. Snowden actively planned to act in a treasonous manner against the injustice of America, then fled to Russia.

The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

It is a classic battle. The brave will win in the long run. Always.

Yes sir. Nothing like hanging yourself and hiding in Russia to show courage.

Courage would be to face the law, regardless of how unjust. See Martin Luther King, for example.

Not trying to be a troll, but lets be honest here, neither Snowden nor Swartz were courageous. Swartz broke the law and broke under the pressure of a plea deal. Snowden actively planned to act in a treasonous manner against the injustice of America, then fled to Russia.

Snowden is in Russia because the USA pulled his passport while he was there....thereby stranding him in Russia. His intentions were to go elsewhere. You really should just get the basic facts before forming an opinion. Seriously.

He had a 6 figure job, smoking hot girlfriend, very comfy and secure job and spent his free time swimming and surfing the beaches of Hawaii. He gave that up for zero financial gain, great lack of security, possible physical harm and the power of the NSA and USA the most powerful country in the world hounding him for the rest of his life. His stated and achieved goal was more government transparency and his actions triggered a national and international debate on the subject. What have you done lately?

I don't suppose Ars, or someone, could give a bit more detail on how it works?

I mean, it seems to me that accessing a/the SecureDrop site would still be a traceable event in and of itself. So, one would think there would need to be a way to indirectly "deposit" information; offhand, I can't think of a way that wouldn't be rather trivially identifiable; P2P distribution to the site, VPNs, etc might help obscure specifically who did it, but given leak A was accessible to a particular group of people, and (given the current surveillance regime) they could ID that a subgroup used a known distribution method, it would help narrow down the possibilities.

But, I am not a network security consultant, so I'm hoping that's accounted for. I'll go glance over some info on it, but I fully expect it to be outside of my expertise.

The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

It is a classic battle. The brave will win in the long run. Always.

Yes sir. Nothing like hanging yourself and hiding in Russia to show courage.

Courage would be to face the law, regardless of how unjust. See Martin Luther King, for example.

Not trying to be a troll, but lets be honest here, neither Snowden nor Swartz were courageous. Swartz broke the law and broke under the pressure of a plea deal. Snowden actively planned to act in a treasonous manner against the injustice of America, then fled to Russia.

Thats pretty brave of you saying that behind an anonymous account.

Your more then welcome to explain how that applies to anything I have said.

edit: and just had to confirm that my email address is actually my name...so yeah, not exactly anonymous.

I don't suppose Ars, or someone, could give a bit more detail on how it works?

I mean, it seems to me that accessing a/the SecureDrop site would still be a traceable event in and of itself. So, one would think there would need to be a way to indirectly "deposit" information; offhand, I can't think of a way that wouldn't be rather trivially identifiable; P2P distribution to the site, VPNs, etc might help obscure specifically who did it, but given leak A was accessible to a particular group of people, and (given the current surveillance regime) they could ID that a subgroup used a known distribution method, it would help narrow down the possibilities.

But, I am not a network security consultant, so I'm hoping that's accounted for. I'll go glance over some info on it, but I fully expect it to be outside of my expertise.

Buy a netbook at a swapmeet or garage sale, with cash.Log in to an unsecured wifi hotspot and upload materials. (See war-driving.)Smash netbook with hammer.

The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

It is a classic battle. The brave will win in the long run. Always.

Yes sir. Nothing like hanging yourself and hiding in Russia to show courage.

Courage would be to face the law, regardless of how unjust. See Martin Luther King, for example.

Not trying to be a troll, but lets be honest here, neither Snowden nor Swartz were courageous. Swartz broke the law and broke under the pressure of a plea deal. Snowden actively planned to act in a treasonous manner against the injustice of America, then fled to Russia.

Snowden is in Russia because the USA pulled his passport while he was there....thereby stranding him in Russia. His intentions were to go elsewhere. You really should just get the basic facts before forming an opinion. Seriously.

He had a 6 figure job, smoking hot girlfriend, very comfy and secure job and spent his free time swimming and surfing the beaches of Hawaii. He gave that up for zero financial gain, great lack of security, possible physical harm and the power of the NSA and USA the most powerful country in the world hounding him for the rest of his life. His stated and achieved goal was more government transparency and his actions triggered a national and international debate on the subject. What have you done lately?

Yes. The US pulled his passport. After he fled the country, trying to find asylum in some of those massive bastions of freedom.....such as China, Russia, several Banana Republics in south America.

And last year I grossed 140K at my job, my wife is smoking hot, and have actually saved lives in a previous job as an occupational first aider. All with a high school education. I can provide you with a copy of my T4, a picture of my wife, and a very nice letter documenting saving peoples lives. Not really sure that's what you ate going for, but whatever.

Snowden certainly did something, tho goodness of his heart? Do you have proof he did it out of the goodness of his heart? Perhaps you could get him to swear an oath to that effect......oh wait. I think he did that once, then betrayed that oath.

To me, he is a traitor. If he wasn't, he would have followed a different path. Brave men do not tell the world their government secrets then run away to another country.

Usku:If I'm reading you correctly, you are advocating that Snowden sacrifice himself to the Great US Gummint, knowing what they do and are doing to all forms of whistleblowers, for what purpose, exactly? His stated intent was to expose the -ILLEGAL- and unconstitutional activities of the Government and to spark public debate on them. It seems to me he has done exactly that. Why are you advocating that he sacrifice his life. You know the Government will throw him in prison for life, without parole. They DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and will go to any lengths to prevent it.

I like the reference to Snowden as brilliant. He really seems to be a person of average intelligence with a goal most people would not undertake. "Ballsy" might be accurate, but a brilliant person that did not want to become a martyr while still getting the information he retrieved out would not have lost his passport and had to run to a dictatorship that is crushing his people in the style of Mussolini for safety.

The guy is basically an average IT guy that decided to socially engineer what is obviously a porous system of data collection. At any point in the chain of many of these programs a person with the will to divulge details could. He just chose targets and infiltrated them like a common criminal. Like a person siphoning off millions from their work as the accountant. They also are not brilliant as they get caught.

The guy took a big risk in doing what he did and then fled before the enormous trail he left of what he did was found. A whistle blower believes what he is doing is for the public good, and that the public will protect him when the consequences of blowing that whistle come. Snowden was a quick and dirty spy with no allegiances to anybody but himself.

What we hope to accomplish with this is to allow a source who does not have as much technical prowess as Snowden to feel much safer than using an open source communication like e-mail.

I realize that this is a direct quote, but you might want to try to clarify this somehow. "safer than using an open source communication like e-mail" reads to me like its suggesting that that the software is not open-source (it is), and that open-source applications are somehow less secure. I know that wasn't the intent of the quote, but it might be worth clarifying nonetheless.

Usku:If I'm reading you correctly, you are advocating that Snowden sacrifice himself to the Great US Gummint, knowing what they do and are doing to all forms of whistleblowers, for what purpose, exactly? His stated intent was to expose the -ILLEGAL- and unconstitutional activities of the Government and to spark public debate on them. It seems to me he has done exactly that. Why are you advocating that he sacrifice his life. You know the Government will throw him in prison for life, without parole. They DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and will go to any lengths to prevent it.

Governments spy. I have no issue with that. Whether what US did is legal or illegal, debatable.

Claiming someone is a both courageous and a hero, when his actions state otherwise.

I don't suppose Ars, or someone, could give a bit more detail on how it works?

I mean, it seems to me that accessing a/the SecureDrop site would still be a traceable event in and of itself. So, one would think there would need to be a way to indirectly "deposit" information; offhand, I can't think of a way that wouldn't be rather trivially identifiable; P2P distribution to the site, VPNs, etc might help obscure specifically who did it, but given leak A was accessible to a particular group of people, and (given the current surveillance regime) they could ID that a subgroup used a known distribution method, it would help narrow down the possibilities.

But, I am not a network security consultant, so I'm hoping that's accounted for. I'll go glance over some info on it, but I fully expect it to be outside of my expertise.

Usku:If I'm reading you correctly, you are advocating that Snowden sacrifice himself to the Great US Gummint, knowing what they do and are doing to all forms of whistleblowers, for what purpose, exactly? His stated intent was to expose the -ILLEGAL- and unconstitutional activities of the Government and to spark public debate on them. It seems to me he has done exactly that. Why are you advocating that he sacrifice his life. You know the Government will throw him in prison for life, without parole. They DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and will go to any lengths to prevent it.

Governments spy. I have no issue with that. Whether what US did is legal or illegal, debatable.

Claiming someone is a both courageous and a hero, when his actions state otherwise.

He acted in his interests not the American people.

I think the problem I have with your argument is you're really not showing how he acted selfishly (in his interests), rather than the American peoples'. Totally reasonable to call him a traitor, which I imagine he technically is, but it seems incontrovertible to me that:

a. His life has gotten substantially more difficult (and probably predictably so for him) since he began leaking information, and

b. His actions have benefited us as a country by severing the gordian knot where we couldn't find out and debate the merit of the government agencies bad actions (imho), because part of their actions were prohibiting people from discussing them in the first place.

The fact that a dedicated whistle-blowing platform now exists, makes mungo happy. Probably it will have some flaws initially but over time hopefully it develops into something really useful for citizens of all walks. Not just to hammer on the government-based programs that abuse our rights, etc but to hold corporations to account for their shady dealings as well. The world can only be better for it.

And in exactly what ways has whisteblowing helped Snowden? If you claim something you may actually want to support it with some arguments, because to everyone looking from the outside Snowden's life got objectively - and predictably - worse since his whisteblowing.

So all the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were cowards then, because the only courageous thing would have been to face the "law" ?

I don't get this attitude at all. I can understand if people reject the act of releasing information. It's stupid IMO, but I can understand the notion.

But the "logic" that - if he accepts a minimum of 20 years in prison, possibly life, worst case even death penalty, he's a hero - but if he wants to retain a bit of freedom, he's a traitor - is completely alien to me.

He acted in his interests, not his purported interests when he fled the country.

His life was going to go to shit regardless of what he did. Rather then risk seeing time inside of a jail, he fled the country.

Avoiding the punishment for your deeds is acting in your best interests. Regardless of whether or not the majority of posters here support the law, it is in fact the law.

Let me state that again. Whether or not people here think the law is just, constitutional or moral does not matter. It is the law.

If Snowden was going to take a stand for the American people, he would have taken a stand. He did not, he acted in his best interests.

1) He broke his oaths, which is treasonous, even if not by law. Would like Judges and the armed forces to do the same?

2) He spent time and effort infiltrating a Government entity with the intent(by his own word) to pilfer the data. This at best is very dishonest, at worst, an act of treason.

3) He fled the country then released the story. If he is such a hero, and loves his country and the things he stood for, he should at least have the courage to face its wrathe. There was a man in a square in China that could have taught him a thing or two about standing up for something.

4) He took Putin's offer. He agreed to silence himself in order to gain access to Russia's "hospitality". With all the information he stole, and the expertise he has of the system he infiltrated. I am sure he is a person of interest, and is most likely doing well enough there.

5) I never claimed once that his actions helped him. I stated he acted in his best interests. Which he did. At the very least, agreeing to Russia's demand that he stop releasing documents related to this incident in order to find sanctuary proves that.

If he wanted to effect change, he should have taken a stand in the USA. Jail would be about the same for him right now. And for the tinfoil hat crowd who claims he'd disappear in a jail or worse, he has.

He was not forced to be silent. He agreed. If the US wanted to off him at this point, I am sure there are ample opportunities for this to happen where he is right now.

So all the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were cowards then, because the only courageous thing would have been to face the "law" ?

I don't get this attitude at all. I can understand if people reject the act of releasing information. It's stupid IMO, but I can understand the notion.

But the "logic" that - if he accepts a minimum of 20 years in prison, possibly life, worst case even death penalty, he's a hero - but if he wants to retain a bit of freedom, he's a traitor - is completely alien to me.

1) Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Many people tried to stay, and resist. Many paid for it with their lives, and by the time most realized just how bad it was, it was too late. Horrible example to compare it to.

2) I wouldn't call him a hero if he stayed, and possibly died. I call him a traitor for actively seeking a job with access to that information with the intent to release it. Then fleeing the country and choosing to muzzle himself to stay in a country that is truly no ally to freedom and rights.

He acted in his interests, not his purported interests when he fled the country.

How would staying in the country have benefited the interests of making the existence of the NSA programs known? That was already done. Him staying would have benefited no one and nothing, except for the government entities who would've gotten to crucify him or make him quietly disappear.

Quote:

His life was going to go to shit regardless of what he did. Rather then risk seeing time inside of a jail, he fled the country.

His life wouldn't have gone to shit if he hadn't exposed the programs in the first place, obviously. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Quote:

Let me state that again. Whether or not people here think the law is just, constitutional or moral does not matter. It is the law.

So? It absolutely is important if a law is just. Just because Congress says "This Is The Law." doesn't make obeying the law OK if doing so is unjust, nor does it make you bad to disobey it.

In defiance of Godwin's Law, I'll bring back the Nazi analogy that you glossed over from the previous poster, but from a different perspective. Nazi soldiers were just following the law when they gassed and otherwise murdered, stole, and inflicted grievous injury upon the Jews. Does the fact that it was the law in Nazi Germany excuse it? If a Nazi soldier helped some Jews escape that fate and then fled the country himself to avoid being caught and executed, does that make him a coward? What purpose would him staying to face the law have served except to end his life for no purpose?

In short: don't bring up "it's the law whether you like it or not and you must obey it" BS. Snowden is no MLK Jr. or Ghandi, but that doesn't mean he didn't do something good for the American people or that not wanting to get locked up for life or possibly executed makes him a coward or devalues what he did.

Quote:

He broke his oaths, which is treasonous, even if not by law. Would like Judges and the armed forces to do the same?

So? This is an instance where obeying his oath would've meant to continue the existence of the programs without the American people even knowing of their existence. Sometimes there is no clear-cut good, just a greater and a lesser evil. Disobeying his oath was pretty obviously the lesser evil in this case.

Quote:

2) He spent time and effort infiltrating a Government entity with the intent(by his own word) to pilfer the data. This at best is very dishonest, at worst, an act of treason.

So? The existence of the NSA programs and their lack of transparency was a far greater dishonesty and act of treason than what he did. Again, lesser evil.

Quote:

4) He took Putin's offer. He agreed to silence himself in order to gain access to Russia's "hospitality". With all the information he stole, and the expertise he has of the system he infiltrated. I am sure he is a person of interest, and is most likely doing well enough there.

So? Everything he had of importance was already out. He had little choice but to stay there and accept Putin's offer or turn himself over to U.S. authorities and basically forfeit his life for no purpose. If effectively committing suicide for no purpose is your definition of courage, then your definition of courage is wrong.

I long for the simpler days of just making an anonymous phone call from a payphone and meeting the journalist on the third level of a parking garage in the dead of night while speaking in a raspy, bass voice.

Then again, with all the electronic surveillance, we'll probably get back to some form of that soon enough.

The enemy of transparency, openness and truth is fear. The subject of truth in government is a classic case of courage vs. fear. The NSA, most politicians, most government agencies, and most people really, make fear based decisions. Instead of deciding what they want and getting it, they decide what they fear and act to avoid it.

Snowden, Aaron Swartz, many of those working on the above project have courage. They are focused on getting what they want, not avoiding what they fear.

It is a classic battle. The brave will win in the long run. Always.

Yes sir. Nothing like hanging yourself and hiding in Russia to show courage.

Courage would be to face the law, regardless of how unjust. See Martin Luther King, for example.

Not trying to be a troll, but lets be honest here, neither Snowden nor Swartz were courageous. Swartz broke the law and broke under the pressure of a plea deal. Snowden actively planned to act in a treasonous manner against the injustice of America, then fled to Russia.

Snowden is in Russia because the USA pulled his passport while he was there....thereby stranding him in Russia. His intentions were to go elsewhere. You really should just get the basic facts before forming an opinion. Seriously.

He had a 6 figure job, smoking hot girlfriend, very comfy and secure job and spent his free time swimming and surfing the beaches of Hawaii. He gave that up for zero financial gain, great lack of security, possible physical harm and the power of the NSA and USA the most powerful country in the world hounding him for the rest of his life. His stated and achieved goal was more government transparency and his actions triggered a national and international debate on the subject. What have you done lately?

Yes. The US pulled his passport. After he fled the country, trying to find asylum in some of those massive bastions of freedom.....such as China, Russia, several Banana Republics in south America.

And last year I grossed 140K at my job, my wife is smoking hot, and have actually saved lives in a previous job as an occupational first aider. All with a high school education. I can provide you with a copy of my T4, a picture of my wife, and a very nice letter documenting saving peoples lives. Not really sure that's what you ate going for, but whatever.

Snowden certainly did something, tho goodness of his heart? Do you have proof he did it out of the goodness of his heart? Perhaps you could get him to swear an oath to that effect......oh wait. I think he did that once, then betrayed that oath.

To me, he is a traitor. If he wasn't, he would have followed a different path. Brave men do not tell the world their government secrets then run away to another country.

Once again, see Martin Luther King.

Wow. You are digging yourself quite a hole usku. First you write Snowden ran away to Russia when the well known facts are otherwise....you're now avoiding the fact his life is now far more difficult. And implying somehow YOU know all the right moves on how a hero should act (only 1 correct way, right?).

Snowden gave up everything for a principle. He put his whole life on the line. He gave up Lanikai beach for Moscow. He brought down on himself the power of the NSA and USA who have been killing American citizens abroad with drone strikes. He jeopardized his whole future, his whole life, his whole security, his income, even his family ALL for a principle, ALL for his conscience, and ALL for no personal gain. He deserves a statue in Wash D.C. next to the founding fathers who understood the true meaning of freedom. Sit back and wait, he might get it someday.

He acted in his interests, not his purported interests when he fled the country.

His life was going to go to shit regardless of what he did. Rather then risk seeing time inside of a jail, he fled the country.

Avoiding the punishment for your deeds is acting in your best interests. Regardless of whether or not the majority of posters here support the law, it is in fact the law ...... If Snowden was going to take a stand for the American people, he would have taken a stand. He did not, he acted in his best interests.

The act that would've been in his best interest would've actually been to continue collecting his weekly paycheck and keep his mouth shut.

Quote:

With all the information he stole, and the expertise he has of the system he infiltrated. I am sure he is a person of interest, and is most likely doing well enough there.

Odd to judge a man by scenarios that you're projecting.

Quote:

If he wanted to effect change, he should have taken a stand in the USA ....

So there's no change going on due to his actions because he didn't stay in the USA?

Quote:

1) Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Many people tried to stay, and resist. Many paid for it with their lives, and by the time most realized just how bad it was, it was too late. Horrible example to compare it to.

The magnitude of the difference doesn't negate what he's asking. The Jews fled because they were criminals under the law and the punishment was death. By your logic, they were cowards also. You need to explain why your logic applies in Snowden's situation but not in the Jew's situation. The only real difference besides magnitude is that Snowden had a choice to be in that situation, but the Jews did not. And that actually pushes his actions more towards "heroic."

Quote:

2) I wouldn't call him a hero if he stayed, and possibly died ...

It seems as though Snowden can't win with you no matter what he does. He's not a hero because he "fled," but he wouldn't have been a hero if he had stayed and was executed either.

1) Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Many people tried to stay, and resist. Many paid for it with their lives, and by the time most realized just how bad it was, it was too late. Horrible example to compare it to.

So - are fleeing Jews cowards or not?

Snowden knew that staying meant 20 years in prison minimum, life very possible, even death penalty not ruled out (though unlikely because of political backlash).

That's pretty much stage "realized just how bad it was".

How would staying accomplish ANYTHING for him or anyone else? How is it cowardly to try to save as much of one's freedom/life after doing the good deed?

1) Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Many people tried to stay, and resist. Many paid for it with their lives, and by the time most realized just how bad it was, it was too late. Horrible example to compare it to.

So - are fleeing Jews cowards or not?

Snowden knew that staying meant 20 years in prison minimum, life very possible, even death penalty not ruled out (though unlikely because of political backlash).

That's pretty much stage "realized just how bad it was".

How would staying accomplish ANYTHING for him or anyone else? How is it cowardly to try to save as much of one's freedom/life after doing the good deed?

Are you people comparing Snowden with Jews during the Holocaust against the Nazi Germany of Hitler? LOL.

Snowden had the opportunity to use wistleblower channels and to defend himself. His is on the run now, aided by China and Russia.

Considering how eager the gov is to hush everything involving these leaks up - and how NSA personnel repeatedly lied under oath to congress and the american public your assumption that this would've had any effect is.. cute really. Also terribly naive, but hey in a different world that'd be a good thing.